DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
An amendment, filed 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, and 7-22 are pending.
Claim 5-6 have been canceled.
Claims 1 has been amended, amendment finds support in the specification at least in the paragraph [0023] of the instant specification, therefore, no new matter is presented.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 21 and 22 are newly added and finds support in the specification in the paragraph [0023] of the instant specification, no new matter is presented.
Therefore, and claims 1-4, 7-10, and 21-22 remain for examination on the merits for this office action.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 112(b) second paragraph rejections of the claim 6 has been withdrawn as the claim has been cancelled.
The previous 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 1, 4, 7-8 and 10 anticipated by KR059B have been withdrawn because claim 1 has been amended.
The previous alternatively 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 1-4, and 9-10 anticipated by Kim have been withdrawn because claim 1 has been amended.
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claim 2 and 3 have been withdrawn because claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “the core layer comprises an aluminum alloy” in line 1, which is different than the core layer as recited in the independent claim 1 upon which it depends, as claim 1 recites “the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon” not any metal or alloy.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the core layer comprises steel” in line 1, which is different than the core layer as recited in the independent claim 1 upon which it depends, as claim 1 recites “the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon” not a metal or an alloy.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-4, 7-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Kyung A et.al. [KR20160127368A] (Machine Translation) (Provided in the IDS) and in view of Zhang Sihan et.al. [CN205692970U] (Machine Translation). An evidentiary reference, J. Gilbert Kaufman [“Properties of Pure Aluminum”, ASM Handbook, Volume 2A, Aluminum Science and Technology, Page 31-43] has been presented.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a grounding strap for a process chamber (a grounding strap for grounding an RF power supply in a plasma processing chamber) [Page 2, Para 8] comprising: a core layer; and an outer layer (Referring to FIG. 3, the ground strap 400 of the present invention is composed of a core metal material and a multiple cladding alloy material made of aluminum clad on both sides of the core metal material) [Page 3, FIG. 3], and aluminum is pure Al [Page 3, Para 15].
PNG
media_image1.png
230
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG.3 of KR 2016-0127368 A)]
Regarding the limitation, “at least 99% aluminum”, Kim teaches pure aluminum, but is silent about the percentage of aluminum, however, as shown in an evidentiary reference, Kaufman teaches that because of the relative ease of preparing the metal in high-purity form and because of its interesting properties as a pure material, pure aluminum has wide range of application [Page, 31, Col. 1] and pure Al comprises aluminum applies to compositions of 99.50-99.79 [Page, 31, Col. 2], therefore, Kim’s aluminum would have a compositions of 99.00% purity and greater, which is within a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have an aluminum composition selected from the range of Kim, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Kim’s is silent about the core layer as a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon.
With respect to meet that difference, Zhang teaches a graphite composite grounding body [Section 0001], wherein the core layer as a ceramic, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber (having an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (ceramic) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet)[Section 0050].
Zhang further teaches this compound grounding body of graphite having inner core composed of heat -resistant fiber at the center, where current density is lowest and the utilization efficiency is minimum during operation. This effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction while minimizing the use of graphite and metals and reducing costs. It also reduces the temperature rise of the grounding electrode caused by short-term lightning current or short-circuit current, resulting in significant practical engineering applications [Abstract Section 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Zhang’s teaching to modify Kim’s core layer, to have a grounding strap which effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction for minimizing the use of metals and reducing costs as well as reduces the risk of short circuit and unwanted temperature rise.
Regarding Claim 2, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, wherein Kim teaches the outer layer comprises pure Al [Page 3, Para 15]. However, pure Al as taught by Kaufman in an evidentiary reference, that pure Al comprises aluminum applies to compositions of 99.50-99.79% alumina [Page, 31, Col. 2]. Given the reference teaching, Kim’s pure aluminum, is 99.50-99.79% slightly below the composition as recited in the instant claim, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Kim’s pure aluminum to produce a grounding strap, because “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°) [See MPEP § 2144.05.I]. In this case, Kim discloses 99.50-99.79% of Al, and this value differs from the claimed “at least 99.99% of Al” by nearly 0.49 to 0.20%, which is significantly lower than the In re Aller and In re Scherl case. Therefore, the examiner reasonably considers the prior art 99.50-99.79% of Al is sufficiently close to the claimed at least 99.99% of Al that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties.
Regarding Claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, it is to be noted claim 3 is subjected to 35 USC § 112(d) fourth paragraph rejections because of improper dependency, however, Kim further teaches the core layer comprises an aluminum alloy (the core metal material is preferably aluminum alloy) [Page 3, Para 16].
Regarding Claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 4, it is to be noted claim 3 is subjected to 35 USC § 112(d) fourth paragraph rejections because of improper dependency, however, Kim further teaches the core layer comprises steel (the core metal material is stainless steel) [Page 3, FIG:3, Para 16].
Regarding claim 7, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 7, wherein Kim is silent about the intermediate layer.
However, Zhang teaches an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (intermediate layer) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet [Section 0050]. Zhang’s core layer, intermediate layer and outer layer each comprising a different chemical composition. Zhang further teaches the advantage of different layers, the compound grounding body of graphite having inner core composed of heat -resistant fiber at the center, where current density is lowest and the utilization efficiency is minimum during operation. This effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction while minimizing the use of graphite and metals and reducing costs. It also reduces the temperature rise of the grounding electrode caused by short-term lightning current or short-circuit current, resulting in significant practical engineering applications [Abstract Section 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Zhang’s teaching to modify Kim to have a grounding strap with better reinforcing strength as well as reduced risk of short circuit and unwanted temperature rise.
Regarding Claim 8, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 8, although, both Kim and Zhang are silent about the value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to produce a grounding strap from Kim’s teaching in view of Zhang, having a value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer is between a value of a CTE of a material of the core layer and a value of a CTE of a material of the outer layer, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a grounding strap for a process chamber, comprising: a core layer, wherein the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon and an outer layer, wherein the outer layer comprises at least 99% aluminum and comprising an intermediate layer disposed between the core layer and the outer layer, the core layer, intermediate layer, and outer layer each comprising a different chemical composition, and then has a value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer is between a value of a CTE of a material of the core layer and a value of a CTE of a material of the outer layer.
Prior art Kim teaches a grounding strap for a process chamber (a grounding strap for grounding an RF power supply in a plasma processing chamber) [Page 2, Para 8] comprising: a core layer; and an outer layer (Referring to FIG. 3, the ground strap 400 of the present invention is composed of a core metal material and a multiple cladding alloy material made of aluminum clad on both sides of the core metal material) [Page 3, FIG. 3], and aluminum is pure Al [Page 3, Para 15]. And Zhang teaches an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (intermediate layer) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet [Section 0050].
Given the teachings of the references of both Kim and Zhang, the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, Kim’s grounding strap in view of Zhang would be expected to exhibit a value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer is between a value of a CTE of a material of the core layer and a value of a CTE of a material of the outer layer.
Regarding Claim 9, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 9, in addition Kim further teaches the outer layer has a thickness (the aluminum layer) between 5 µm and 15 µm [Page 7, Para 4].
Kim’s outer layer thickness is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have an outer layer thickness selected from the range of Kim, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Alternatively, Zhang also teaches the outer layer has a thickness (thickness of the metal sheet, aluminum sheet) is between 50 µm (0.05 mm) and 500 µm (5 mm) [Claim 5 and 6].
Zhang’s outer layer thickness is overlapping with a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have an outer layer thickness selected from the range of Zhang, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding Claim 10, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 10, although, both Kim and Zhang are silent about the value of a yield strength at room temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to produce a grounding strap from Kim’s teaching in view of Zhang, having a yield strength at room temperature of at least 70 megapascals, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a grounding strap for a process chamber, comprising: a core layer, wherein the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon and an outer layer, wherein the outer layer comprises at least 99% aluminum and the grounding strap has a yield strength at room temperature of at least 70 megapascals.
Prior art Kim teaches a grounding strap for grounding an RF power supply in a plasma processing chamber [Page 2, Para 8] comprising: a core layer; and an outer layer [Page 3, FIG. 3], wherein the outer layer comprises at least 99% aluminum (Aluminum is pure Al) [Page 3, Para 15]. It is further to be noted, that one of the object of Kim’s discloser is to provide a grounding strap having high temperature yield strength [Page 2, Para 6]. And Zhang teaches an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (intermediate layer) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet [Section 0050].
Given the teachings of the reference(s), the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, Kim’s grounding strap in view of Zhang would be expected to exhibit a yield strength at room temperature of at least 70 megapascals as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 22, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 22 Kim is silent about the core layer consists essentially of carbon fiber.
However, Zhang teaches a graphite composite grounding body [Section 0001], having an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber [Section 0046].
Zhang further teaches this compound grounding body of graphite having inner core composed of heat -resistant fiber at the center, where current density is lowest and the utilization efficiency is minimum during operation. This effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction while minimizing the use of graphite and metals and reducing costs. It also reduces the temperature rise of the grounding electrode caused by short-term lightning current or short-circuit current, resulting in significant practical engineering applications [Abstract Section 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Zhang’s teaching to modify Kim to have a grounding strap which effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction for minimizing the use of metals and reducing costs as well as reduces the risk of short circuit and unwanted temperature rise.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Kyung A et.al. [KR20160127368A] (Machine Translation) (Provided in the IDS) and in view of Zhang Sihan et.al. [CN205692970U] (Machine Translation) and an evidentiary reference, J. Gilbert Kaufman [“Properties of Pure Aluminum”, ASM Handbook, Volume 2A, Aluminum Science and Technology, Page 31-43] has been presented, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dmitry Lubomirsky et.al. [US20200185203A1].
Regarding Claim 21, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 21 Kim is silent about the core layer consists essentially of an alumina or zirconia ribbon. Zhang teaches a graphite composite grounding body [Section 0001], having a graphite layer 121 (ceramic) is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is an aluminum sheet [Section 0050].
But Zhang is also silent about the core layer consists essentially of an alumina or zirconia ribbon.
However, Lubomirsky teaches the plate of ground shield 1 is composed of a bulk ceramic material and examples ceramic materials may be used for the plate may include Al2O3 (alumina), or zirconia (a solid solution of Y2O3-ZrO2) [Section 0043]. Lubomirsky also teaches in order to provide RF grounding (and thus function as a ground shield), ground shield should include an electrically conductive component. Accordingly, ground shield may include an electrically conductive layer on at least an upper surface of the plate of ground shield [Section 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Lubomirsky’s teaching to modify Kim in view of Zhang to have a grounding strap in order to provide RF grounding.
Claim 1, 3-4, and 7-10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [KR102358059B1] (KR’059B hereafter) (Machine Translation) (FIG from original) and in view of Zhang Sihan et.al. [CN205692970U] (Machine Translation). An evidentiary reference, J. Gilbert Kaufman [“Properties of Pure Aluminum”, ASM Handbook, Volume 2A, Aluminum Science and Technology, Page 31-43] has been presented.
Regarding Claim 1, KR’059B teaches a ground strap of a plasma process chamber, and relates to a ground strap of a plasma process chamber that is strong in corrosion resistance and does not damage a product even by repeated bending according to the operation of the chamber [Section 0001]. KR’059B’s ground strap includes an upper ground layer (outer layer) [Section 0008], a lower ground layer (outer layer) made of the same material as the upper ground layer [Section 0009]. Made of multiple ground layers and different materials, including an intermediate layer (core layer) interposed between the upper ground layer and the lower ground layer [Section 00010]. KR’059B also teaches the intermediate layer (core layer) is made of a material that is relatively strong compared to the plurality of ground layers, thereby preventing damage to the ground strap due to repeated bending of the ground strap according to the operation of the plasma process chamber [Section 00011]. KR’059B further teaches a ground strap (100) of a plasma process chamber [Section 0033], wherein the ground strap (100) is composed of an upper ground layer (110), a middle layer (120), and a lower ground layer (130). The upper ground layer (110, upper aluminum layer) and the lower ground layer (130, lower aluminum layer) are preferably made of the same material, aluminum, which has good electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance [Section 00035-0036, FIG.3].
Regarding the limitation, “at least 99% aluminum”, although KR’059B teaches aluminum metal, is silent about the percentage of aluminum. However, KR’059B teaches aluminum without any alloying element, i.e. unalloyed aluminum, i.e. pure aluminum, as shown in an evidentiary reference, Kaufman teaches because of the relative ease of preparing the metal in high-purity form and because of its interesting properties as a pure material, pure aluminum has wide range of application [Page, 31, Col. 1] and the Aluminum Association designation system for teaches pure Al comprises aluminum applies to compositions of 99.50-99.79 [Page, 31, Col. 2], therefore, KR’059B’s aluminum would have a compositions of 99.00% purity and greater, which is within a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have an aluminum composition selected from the range of KR’059B, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
KR’059B’s is silent about the core layer as a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon.
Zhang teaches a graphite composite grounding body [Section 0001], wherein the core layer as a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon (having an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (ceramic) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet)[Section 0050].
Zhang further teaches this compound grounding body of graphite having inner core composed of heat -resistant fiber at the center, where current density is lowest and the utilization efficiency is minimum during operation. This effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction while minimizing the use of graphite and metals and reducing costs. It also reduces the temperature rise of the grounding electrode caused by short-term lightning current or short-circuit current, resulting in significant practical engineering applications [Abstract Section 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Zhang’s teaching to modify KR’059B to have a grounding strap which effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction for minimizing the use of metals and reducing costs as well as reduces the risk of short circuit and unwanted temperature rise.
Regarding Claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, it is to be noted claim 3 is subjected to 35 USC § 112(d) fourth paragraph rejections because of improper dependency, however, KR’059B further teaches the core layer comprises an aluminum alloy (middle layer (120) is made of a different material from the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130), is interposed between the upper ground layer (110) and the lower ground layer (130). Unlike the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130), the middle layer (120) is a layer for reinforcing the strength according to the bending of the ground strap and is made of a material with better rigidity, such as Inconel (aluminum alloy))[Section 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have KR’059’s teaching to have a grounding strap for reinforcing the strength according to the bending of the ground strap and is made of a material with better rigidity.
Regarding Claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 4, it is to be noted claim 4 is subjected to 35 USC § 112(d) fourth paragraph rejections because of improper dependency, however, KR’059B further teaches the core layer comprises steel (middle layer (120) is made of a different material from the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130), is interposed between the upper ground layer (110) and the lower ground layer (130). Unlike the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130), the middle layer (120) is a layer for reinforcing the strength according to the bending of the ground strap and is made of a material with better rigidity, such as stainless steel) [Section 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have KR’059’s teaching to have a grounding strap for reinforcing the strength according to the bending of the ground strap and is made of a material with better rigidity.
Regarding claim 7, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 7, wherein KR’059B teaches a ground strap includes an upper ground layer (outer layer) [Section 0008], a lower ground layer (outer layer) made of the same material as the upper ground layer [Section 0009]. Made of multiple ground layers and different materials, including an intermediate layer (core layer) interposed between the upper ground layer and the lower ground layer [Section 00010]. KR’059B also teaches the intermediate layer (core layer) is made of a material that is relatively strong compared to the plurality of ground layers, thereby preventing damage to the ground strap due to repeated bending of the ground strap according to the operation of the plasma process chamber [Section 00011]. KR’059B teaches a ground strap (100) of a plasma process chamber according to one [Section 0033], wherein the ground strap (100) is composed of an upper ground layer (110), a middle layer (120), and a lower ground layer (130). The upper ground layer (110, upper aluminum layer) and the lower ground layer (130, lower aluminum layer) are preferably made of the same material, aluminum, which has good electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance. The upper ground layer (110) and the lower ground layer (130) may be ground terminals for grounding the RF electrode [Section 0035-0037, FIG. 3]. KR’059B’ middle layer (120) is made of a different material from the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130), is interposed between the upper ground layer (110) and the lower ground layer (130), and is cladded with the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130) under high temperature and pressure. Unlike the upper and lower ground layers (110, 130), the middle layer (120) is a layer for reinforcing the strength according to the bending of the ground strap rather than performing the function of a ground terminal [Section 0044]. Finally, KR’059B teaches an example embodiment, in FIG. 8, wherein the middle layer comprising multilayer, with an intermediate layer (upper layer of the middle layer) disposed between the core layer (strength reinforcing layers of the middle layer) and the outer layer 110, the core layer, intermediate layer, and outer layer each comprising a different chemical composition as well as a reinforced layer with a mesh structure containing strength reinforcing layers (122a, 122b, 122c) made of
PNG
media_image3.png
326
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Core layer)][AltContent: textbox (Intermediate layer)][AltContent: textbox (FIG.8 of KR102358059B1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]a material.
In addition and alternatively, Zhang also teaches an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (intermediate layer) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet [Section 0050]. Zhang’s core layer, intermediate layer and outer layer each comprising a different chemical composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have KR’059B’s teaching and/or Zhang’s teaching to have a grounding strap with better reinforcing strength as well as reduced risk of short circuit and unwanted temperature rise.
Regarding Claim 8, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 8, although, both KR’059B and Zhang are silent about the value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to produce a grounding strap from KR’059B’s teaching in view of Zhang, having a value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer is between a value of a CTE of a material of the core layer and a value of a CTE of a material of the outer layer, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a grounding strap for a process chamber, comprising: a core layer, wherein the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon and an outer layer, wherein the outer layer comprises at least 99% aluminum and comprising an intermediate layer disposed between the core layer and the outer layer, the core layer, intermediate layer, and outer layer each comprising a different chemical composition, and then has a value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer is between a value of a CTE of a material of the core layer and a value of a CTE of a material of the outer layer.
Prior art KR’059B further teaches a ground strap (100) of a plasma process chamber according to one [Section 0033], wherein the ground strap (100) is composed of an upper ground layer (110), a middle layer (120), and a lower ground layer (130). The upper ground layer (110, upper aluminum layer) and the lower ground layer (130, lower aluminum layer) are preferably made of the same material, aluminum [Section 00035-0036, FIG.3] and the middle layer comprising multilayer, with an intermediate layer (upper layer of the middle layer) disposed between the core layer (strength reinforcing layers of the middle layer) and the outer layer 110, the core layer, intermediate layer, and outer layer each comprising a different chemical composition as well as a reinforced layer with a mesh structure containing strength reinforcing layers (122a, 122b, 122c) made of a material [Section 0038, 0044, FIG.8]. And Zhang teaches an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (intermediate layer) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet [Section 0050].
Given the teachings of the references of both KR’059B and Zhang, the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, KR’059B’s grounding strap in view of Zhang would be expected to exhibit a value of a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of a material of the intermediate layer is between a value of a CTE of a material of the core layer and a value of a CTE of a material of the outer layer.
Regarding Claim 9, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 9, while KR’059B is silent about the outer layer thickness (the aluminum layer), Zhang teaches the outer layer has a thickness (thickness of the metal sheet, aluminum sheet) is between 50 µm (0.05 mm) and 500 µm (5 mm) [Claim 5 and 6].
Zhang’s outer layer thickness is overlapping with a range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have an outer layer thickness selected from the range of Zhang, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding Claim 10, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 10, although, both KR’059B and Zhang are silent about the value of a yield strength at room temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to produce a grounding strap from KR’059B’s teaching in view of Zhang, having a yield strength at room temperature of at least 70 megapascals, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a grounding strap for a process chamber, comprising: a core layer, wherein the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon and an outer layer, wherein the outer layer comprises at least 99% aluminum and the grounding strap has a yield strength at room temperature of at least 70 megapascals.
Prior art KR’059B further teaches a ground strap (100) of a plasma process chamber according to one [Section 0033], wherein the ground strap (100) is composed of an upper ground layer (110), a middle layer (120), and a lower ground layer (130). The upper ground layer (110, upper aluminum layer) and the lower ground layer (130, lower aluminum layer) are preferably made of the same material, aluminum, which has good electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance [Section 00035-0036, FIG.3]. It is further to be noted, the main object of KR’059B’s discloser is to providing reinforcing strength [Section 0038]. And Zhang teaches an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber, mullite fiber, and polyimide fiber [Section 0046], (3) Fabricate a graphite (intermediate layer) layer 121 outside the inner core 11 [Section 0062], A graphite layer 121 is tightly wrapped with a metal sheet 123 [Section 0065] and the metal sheet 123 is a copper sheet, an aluminum sheet, or a platinum sheet [Section 0050].
Given the teachings of the references of both KR’059B and Zhang, the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, KR’059B’s grounding strap in view of Zhang would be expected to exhibit a yield strength at room temperature of at least 70 megapascals as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 22, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 22 KR’059B is silent about the core layer consists essentially of carbon fiber.
However, Zhang teaches a graphite composite grounding body [Section 0001], wherein the core layer as a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber (having an inner core composed of one or more heat-resistant fibers at the center of the grounding electrode [Section 0013], (1) The inner core 11 is formed by arranging single or multiple heat-resistant fiber bundles in parallel, [Section 0055] heat-resistant fibers may be one or more of carbon fiber) [Section 0046].
Zhang further teaches this compound grounding body of graphite having inner core composed of heat -resistant fiber at the center, where current density is lowest and the utilization efficiency is minimum during operation. This effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction while minimizing the use of graphite and metals and reducing costs. It also reduces the temperature rise of the grounding electrode caused by short-term lightning current or short-circuit current, resulting in significant practical engineering applications [Abstract Section 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Zhang’s teaching to modify KR’059B to have a grounding strap which effectively improves conductor utilization and grounding resistance reduction for minimizing the use of metals and reducing costs as well as reduces the risk of short circuit and unwanted temperature rise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered and as shown above, the previous 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 1, 4, 7-8 and 10, alternatively 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejections of the claims 1-4, and 9-10 and 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claim 2 and 3 have been withdrawn as because claim 1 has been amended.
In response to Applicant's arguments regarding the reference, Kim that “Kim does not teach wherein the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon," seems persuasive, however, to meet this deficiency, a new reference Zhang Sihan et.al. [CN205692970U] (Machine Translation) has been presented.
Therefore, a new 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claim 1 and other dependent claims over KR059B in view of Zhang have been associated with this office action due to the amendments (please check the section of the 35U.S.C. 103 rejection section for further details).
In response to Applicant's arguments regarding the reference, KR059B that “KR059B does not teach "wherein the core layer consists essentially of a ceramic ribbon, a polymer, a polymer ceramic composite, or a carbon fiber ribbon," seems persuasive, however, to meet this deficiency, a new reference Zhang Sihan et.al. [CN205692970U] (Machine Translation) has been presented.
Therefore, a new alternative 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claim 1 and other dependent claims over KR059B in view of Zhang have been associated with this office action due to the amendments (please check the section of the 35U.S.C. 103 rejection section for further details).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738